Recommended Posts

Oh yeah the "Pissy-rich-white-folks" law. If there is a limit of the number of events that can be held, then somethings got to go for the AAF to come in. Eliminate 5 events from the calendar (6 in preparation for playoffs) and the AAF could play there. If the AAF and the University really wanted to do it, they could make it work. It's not impossible.

Also in the world of money talks, the AAF lacks both the actual capital (with their demonstrated financial issues) and the political capital to get the city or the University to change their minds. Knowing how Berkeley is I'd doubt they'd change their minds under any circumstance. Now that said I think Sacramento and Hornet Stadium would be a fine venue for an AAF team should they a) last for another season, and b) relocate a team. If something like that happened I'd be inclined to walk over and catch a couple of games.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yeah. Maybe move Salt Lake/Arizona to Oakland or Sacramento next year. I'd also try to doing promotions more considering that is putting more butts in chairs than not. They know they're minor league so why not embrace everything that goes with that?

Except for nights where you change the team's name to something wacky or a local delicacy. Those are godawful blatant cash grabs and everyone knows it. Promotions are that at the end of the day anyway but that is just taking things too far.

Moving to Sacramento is a no. The stadium they have is inadequate. It was when the Surge played there. On the other hand, people did come out for the Surge. Oakland said no to the league (and the XFL) as did St. Louis, which had scheduling conflicts.

Where to go then?

Suppose the NFL did buy a controlling interest in the league or at the very least became a 50-50 partner (could this be what the Hurricanes' owner is thinking? A nice return on investment!) where would they put teams or move teams? St. Louis...no. Too many bitter feelings. Sacramento? Yeah, I suppose. Louisville? The NFL has never considered that city for anything. Raleigh Durham? The Skyhawks were an abject failure. They could try Mexico City or Monterrey, but those markets won't settle for minor league. NY Metro area? Not a chance unless they play at Red Bull Arena in Jersey, which is a bitch to get to from the PATH train. Columbus? Only f they share the Crew's stadium. That might work. Milwaukee? No. Packers' country. It is funny because there is a ready-made market in Germany. Fans are still pissed that the Galaxy and Fire went away. here are still very active NFL Europe Facebook groups.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Moving to Sacramento is a no. The stadium they have is inadequate. It was when the Surge played there. On the other hand, people did come out for the Surge. Oakland said no to the league (and the XFL) as did St. Louis, which had scheduling conflicts.

Where to go then?

Suppose the NFL did buy a controlling interest in the league or at the very least became a 50-50 partner (could this be what the Hurricanes' owner is thinking? A nice return on investment!) where would they put teams or move teams? St. Louis...no. Too many bitter feelings. Sacramento? Yeah, I suppose. Louisville? The NFL has never considered that city for anything. Raleigh Durham? The Skyhawks were an abject failure. They could try Mexico City or Monterrey, but those markets won't settle for minor league. NY Metro area? Not a chance unless they play at Red Bull Arena in Jersey, which is a bitch to get to from the PATH train. Columbus? Only f they share the Crew's stadium. That might work. Milwaukee? No. Packers' country. It is funny because there is a ready-made market in Germany. Fans are still pissed that the Galaxy and Fire went away. here are still very active NFL Europe Facebook groups.

You're right, but you're wrong with why you're right.

Milwaukee has no field that would suit a football team. Miller Park isn't the answer to this question.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Also in the world of money talks, the AAF lacks both the actual capital (with their demonstrated financial issues) and the political capital to get the city or the University to change their minds. Knowing how Berkeley is I'd doubt they'd change their minds under any circumstance. Now that said I think Sacramento and Hornet Stadium would be a fine venue for an AAF team should they a) last for another season, and b) relocate a team. If something like that happened I'd be inclined to walk over and catch a couple of games.

I love how one issue with the payment system and one new investor on the same weekend equals financial issues.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Louisville, Raleigh, Albuquerque, and Fresno could all be relocation cities as well as San Jose and expansion choices if the AAF survives its first year and needs to relocate 1-2 teams. Expansion, on the other hand, might need to wait till a 3rd year although the addition of 1-2 teams in year 2 might work.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Also, the AAF can't just go to any of the MLS markets just because that MLS team has a stadium. Even if all MLS stadiums have the ability to host American football, not all MLS teams would be in favor of it. The Stallions could have easily wanted to play at Rio Tinto Stadium, but it's likely that Real Salt Lake said no so they chose the larger Rice-Eccles Stadium. If the AAF was to expand into Minnesota for example, they would either have to play at TCF Bank Stadium or US Bank Stadium instead of the smaller Allianz Field. Atlanta, Cincy, Dallas, DC United, Houston, LA Galaxy, New England, New York City FC, Seattle, Toronto and Vancouver all have stadiums in MLS that can or will host football. There have already been complaints about the DC XFL team using Audi Field as their home venue rather than RFK or Fed Ex.

Even if the AAF wants stadiums in the 15,000-20,000 range, they can't assume that that team will play in an MLS stadium. Let's say they want to expand to Columbus next year.....the logical choice is Mapfre Stadium, home of the Crew. But what if the Crew say no? Then it's either play at the massive Ohio Stadium or have no team in Columbus at all.

Chicago, Colorado, Columbus, LA FC, Minnesota, Montreal, New York Red Bulls, Orlando, Philly, Portland, Real Salt Lake, San Jose and Sporting KC are likely a no in regards to American football played at their stadiums, especially when all of those cities (except for Portland) have larger stadiums nearby that play host to college and NFL games on a yearly basis.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Even if the AAF wants stadiums in the 15,000-20,000 range, they can't assume that that team will play in an MLS stadium. Let's say they want to expand to Columbus next year.....the logical choice is Mapfre Stadium, home of the Crew. But what if the Crew say no? Then it's either play at the massive Ohio Stadium or have no team in Columbus at all.

Which is why Salt Lake City ended up playing at Rice-Eccles instead of Rio Tinto. That smaller stadium would look better and allow them to dress up the field as they wished. Instead they're stuck with Utah's field markings and it looks like they're playing high school football at a neutral field.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Louisville, Raleigh, Albuquerque, and Fresno could all be relocation cities as well as San Jose and expansion choices if the AAF survives its first year and needs to relocate 1-2 teams. Expansion, on the other hand, might need to wait till a 3rd year although the addition of 1-2 teams in year 2 might work.

1

I don't see why Fresno is a choice. They have an attendance problem with Bulldog athletics. Basketball has dropped 47% in the last 12 years and until Tedford arrived, the same was the case at Bulldog Stadium, to the point that donations were so low the plan and cost to renovate the Bulldog Stadium was greatly modified. The average age of the Fresno State season ticket holder for football is like 58. If you are aging, your income becomes more fixed. The only area of California which is aging faster than the Central Valley is Los Angeles.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So apparently, Sporting KC hosted the NCAA Division II National Championship football game from 2014-2017. Still though, if the AAF were to go to KC, Sporting KC would ask them to talk to the Chiefs about playing at Arrowhead.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Which is why Salt Lake City ended up playing at Rice-Eccles instead of Rio Tinto. That smaller stadium would look better and allow them to dress up the field as they wished. Instead they're stuck with Utah's field markings and it looks like they're playing high school football at a neutral field.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So apparently, Sporting KC hosted the NCAA Division II National Championship football game from 2014-2017. Still though, if the AAF were to go to KC, Sporting KC would ask them to talk to the Chiefs about playing at Arrowhead.

That's are one-off games in mid-December, after the MLS season and the 2018 game was moved as the team needed to place an electric heating system underneath the pitch.

If MLS teams have long playoff runs and are in the CONCACAF Champions League, that begins in February too so there's little downtime for any renovations.

Red Bull Arena has hosted rugby games, both Friendlies and games with the London Irish vs. Saracens in 2017. It is more lucrative for those one-offs or one to two international soccer friendlies in March (like Red Bull Arena will have next week with Paraguay v. Peru and Ecuador v. Honduras) than five to six AAF games. It is also better for their primary team/investment.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Also, I know someone mentioned Hornet Stadium at Sacramento State not being all that great, but the Mountain Lions of the UFL had pretty good turnouts for home games in 2010. So people in SAC will show up for football. AAF may need a few years to prove itself though sense Sacramento was ultimately burned by the UFL.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I remember posting a tweet here where Columbus was considered an option for expansion, but I don't know if that would work.

Columbus could possibly work if they used Mapfre Stadium after the Crew move into their new stadium. The seating might drop a bit though since it is intended to be part of a training complex. The big issue again is weather which in February is ridiculously unpredictable in Ohio. If the league keeps playing games in February they need to stay to the south.